RTX 2060 is acceptable

[Old School Player]

1080p, 30 fps in New Atlantis, If fsr 3 manages to take this to 60 fps (or 45 and ultra) I will be satisfied

Settings high except Volumetric Lighting (medium), Render Resolution Scale and sharpness 75%, can you improve it?

[SubsidedLemon]

Got the same card. What CPU and how much RAM are you using?

Also I assume it's SSD installed?

[Bengel]

Honestly, RTX 2060 should 60 FPS be a minimum for a GPU that isn't that old yet. Having developed various of games myself I conclude that the game is just poorly optimized (No offense to the devs, they were probably being crunched to make the release date). The game already is setup in different "zones" meaning that everytime the game loads into another room, area, etc, it's a new bundle of assets being placed, and the old stuff is removed. This is very easy to optimise vs having a giant massive open world game. This is pretty much the easiest form of game to optimise, and even in my case with a 3080 (10GB) having 70 - 90 FPS on high-ultra settings in this kind of setting is unacceptable IMO.

Do note that this game is also CPU Intensive, so that may also affect your FPS if your CPU can't keep up. Arma 3 is a similar case that is always capped at 30 - 60 FPS due to CPU limitations and engine limitations.

[Old School Player]

Originally posted by SubsidedLemon:

Got the same card. What CPU and how much RAM are you using?

Also I assume it's SSD installed?

CPU 50% Ryzen 7 3800X 8-Core
SSD PCI
83% VRAM of 6
44% RAM of 32

fps peak at 40 sometimes (everything mentioned is in New Atlantis)

[Lizard]

Originally posted by Bengel:

Honestly, RTX 2060 should 60 FPS be a minimum for a GPU that isn't that old yet. Having developed various of games myself I conclude that the game is just poorly optimized (No offense to the devs, they were probably being crunched to make the release date). The game already is setup in different "zones" meaning that everytime the game loads into another room, area, etc, it's a new bundle of assets being placed, and the old stuff is removed. This is very easy to optimise vs having a giant massive open world game. This is pretty much the easiest form of game to optimise, and even in my case with a 3080 (10GB) having 70 - 90 FPS on high-ultra settings in this kind of setting is unacceptable IMO.

Do note that this game is also CPU Intensive, so that may also affect your FPS if your CPU can't keep up. Arma 3 is a similar case that is always capped at 30 - 60 FPS due to CPU limitations and engine limitations.

Having developed various of games myself I conclude that you are full of ♥♥♥♥

[Ellis_Cake]

Ive a 2060 super,
i5 11400f
16 gb (3200mhz) ram.

It doesnt run perfect 60,
but runs okaish.

(medium settings, low npc/crowd (saves cpu more)
dlss 2 (v 3.5 dll) (luke bridge mod)
and resolution scale to 70%

I feel this game could do with a view distance setting (its very very far default)

[Ellis_Cake]

(have anyone braved trying to set the ugrid/cells down yet? ive not tried it in case it breaks savefiles)

[Old School Player]

Originally posted by Bengel:

Honestly, RTX 2060 should 60 FPS be a minimum for a GPU that isn't that old yet. Having developed various of games myself I conclude that the game is just poorly optimized (No offense to the devs, they were probably being crunched to make the release date). The game already is setup in different "zones" meaning that everytime the game loads into another room, area, etc, it's a new bundle of assets being placed, and the old stuff is removed. This is very easy to optimise vs having a giant massive open world game. This is pretty much the easiest form of game to optimise, and even in my case with a 3080 (10GB) having 70 - 90 FPS on high-ultra settings in this kind of setting is unacceptable IMO.

Do note that this game is also CPU Intensive, so that may also affect your FPS if your CPU can't keep up. Arma 3 is a similar case that is always capped at 30 - 60 FPS due to CPU limitations and engine limitations.

In my case the problem does not seem to be the CPU, it seems to be the graphics. GPU is always at 100% usage, and CPU at 50% or less

I guess it's going to be impossible for them to optimize the engine. Let's wait for FSR. 60 fps is enough for me.

[Ellis_Cake]

(its hard to measure cpu usage by % total, since few games really can make sensible use of all cores - multithread spread on cores in a game, which needs sync for frames is not commonly achieved in games, async tasks are another matter)

[Esmarix]

I am currently on a rtx2060super with an i9-9900k and it runs fine, 50-60 fps when combined with the dlss mod and shadow minimizer mod. However I must admit that I am seriously wondering how people are still expecting old tech like my gpu to manage new generation games like these and the fact some are even surprised by ssd requirement XD who even runs a pc on hdd these days?

[Old School Player]

Originally posted by Ellis_Cake:

Ive a 2060 super,
i5 11400f
16 gb (3200mhz) ram.

It doesnt run perfect 60,
but runs okaish.

(medium settings, low npc/crowd (saves cpu more)
dlss 2 (v 3.5 dll) (luke bridge mod)
and resolution scale to 70%

I feel this game could do with a view distance setting (its very very far default)

Test the settings, I think you can raise most settings to high without too much penalty, although you will need to view the fps in the same scene

The only setting that seemed to penalize noticeably is Volumetric Lighting. You could also fine-tune the resolution scale, which has a huge effect on quality. Maybe up to 80%

[ayrtep]

I went with https://www.sportskeeda.com/gaming-tech/best-starfield-graphics-settings-rtx-2060-rtx-2060-super and feels ok.

[Ellis_Cake]

I should add i "have to" play at 2560x1440 since its the native res of my display. the dlss/fsr idea is to keep native res and render lower anyways.

[Ellis_Cake]

I am curious tho if we can tune down ugrid/cells in starfield, lacking an ingame viewdistance slider. i feel it being so high can be part of why performance is hard gained (i think its set to 36)

[Raytraced]

Originally posted by Bengel:

Honestly, RTX 2060 should 60 FPS be a minimum for a GPU that isn't that old yet.

Isn't that old, lol? Not only it is almost half a decade old, it is literally the slowest one of that generation.

[Esmarix]

Originally posted by Raytraced:

Originally posted by Bengel:

Honestly, RTX 2060 should 60 FPS be a minimum for a GPU that isn't that old yet.

Isn't that old, lol? Not only it is almost half a decade old, it is literally the slowest one of that generation.

not to mention it was first generation of new tech which usually doesnt age well :) I am myself stuck on an 2060s but I am not under any illusion of it being something of a miracle gpu XD